Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
I just made an edit to circle it in.
My apologies for not making the connection originally.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The People’s Guide to Project 2025
- Thread starter Wandering Monk
- Start date
My apologies for not making the connection originally.
Of course there could be.
The members include many people, some Republicans and some not. That proves nothing.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No. By observable fact.
So you write, in your opinion.
Just by way of caution, I did keyword searches on a couple of the items listed above and wasn't able to find them in the Mandate.
For example, I didn't find anything talking about banning Muslims from entering the country, nor about mass deportation of immigrants.
Also, while incarceration in camps is mentioned, it's not in the sense implied by the above list. Rather, it speaks about inhumane camps imposed upon persecuted citizens in Burma, northern Iraq, and proposing the integration of displaced people rather than the current practice of keeping them in dehumanizing camps financed by the international community.
That's not to say that Project 2025 isn't a scary document that is best not implemented (too much church mixed with state for my comfort), but I would advise maybe keeping the PDF of the Mandate on hand, so that claims of what the Project says can be more closely examined via a keyword-search.
-
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
Thanks for running a check. I thought about after the fact but don't have a PC and don't know how to do word finds on my phone.
Project 2025 has been around for quite some time, so I'm not surprised there would be variations. I haven't thoroughly read the published manifesto, but I do remember the Muslim ban was a significant part of the early talk by the supporters on social media.
Thanks again for running a check.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Seeing all the shuttered and boarded up businesses and the loss of jobs is not an opinion.
What are you talking about? Who do you think proposed and wrote the legislation? These reforms were roundly opposed by the Right.
From the mighty Wiki:
"The Heritage Foundation was founded on February 16, 1973, during the Nixon administration by Paul Weyrich, Edwin Feulner, and Joseph Coors.[10][11][12] Growing out of the new business activist movement inspired by the Powell Memorandum,[13][14] discontent with Richard Nixon's embrace of the liberal consensus, and the nonpolemical, cautious nature of existing think tanks,[15] Weyrich and Feulner sought to create a conservative version of the Brookings Institution that advanced conservative policies"
The Heritage foundation was radically conservative from the outset. Its whole purpose was to further the goals of Powell Manifesto.
And is the results of the Neoliberal policies initiated by Reagan, not the results of liberalism.
Do some reading, O benighted one. Jane Mayer, Thom Hartmann, Thomas Frank.
Last edited:
Even a casual fact-check will uncover hundreds of often flagrant and obvious lies. It's not a matter of opinion.
|
I just read the 47 page chapter on the Dept of Health and Human Services. It starts out saying "abortion is not healthcare." Most of the the 47 pages is dedicated to abortion, a couple of pages to anti-trans, and a bit mentioning cutting head start and SNAP programs.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Those businesses were doing absolutely fine well after your attempt to blame Pres. Reagan instead BS.
Huh?
Do some reading on the subject before you posit an opinion.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I don't need to read. I already know who's responsible.
from page 4 of the Mandate for Leadership document:
Yet it goes on to use the term abort or abortion more than 200 times in their document.
The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion — 5 — Foreword (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.
Yet it goes on to use the term abort or abortion more than 200 times in their document.
All opinions are biased, but some are biased by facts and others are not. A rational bias is a good thing. It's what our brains do when working well. We have experience and form opinions (bias). Some of my rational biases are against pedophilia and drunk driving. I object to both. And I object to Trump on the same basis. Your bias is to defend him, but that is an irrational bias and a failure of that process. You should be biased against Trump based on the monstrous things he's done (assuming that you have a social conscience), but instead, you're biased for him.
Last edited:
Like it or not, this is basically saying, "the nation needs to go back to hating and marginalizing everybody who doesn't fit a very narrow norm." That is a very christian-nationalist-right-wing-conservative notion.
Do you really just make some lumping together of pedophilia, drunk driving and Donald Trump? The level of your bias against Trump is beyond the pale and shows you are not serious. No, I am not biased for Trump. You will insist that isn't so, but it truly is.